1 ( 2025:HHC:2254 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.176 of 2024 Date of Decision : 09.01.2025 Roshan Lal and others …… Petitioners Versus Inder Kumar and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioners : Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 23.11.2023, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Reckong Peo, District Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.120 of 2022. Vide the said order, two applications had been dismissed by the trial Court, one under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the present petitioners/defendants before the trial Court and another application under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking extension of time for filing written statement. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is not aggrieved by the said order to the extent the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:2254 ) application filed on behalf of the petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, has been dismissed. His only grievance is with respect to the dismissal of the application under Order 148 of the Civil Procedure Code, whereby time for filing written statement has not been extended by the trial Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings appended along with the present petition and the impugned order. 4. In the case at hand, the petitioners/defendants were served before the trial Court on 20.07.2022. In the aforesaid circumstances, ordinarily in terms of provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, written statement should have been filed on or before 20.08.2022. The same could have been extended by another 60 days, i.e., till 20.10.2022. Till 20.10.2022, no written statement had been filed. 5. It is only on 26.06.2023 that for the first time, an application under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed seeking extension of time for filing written statement, in the case at hand. 6. The only explanation offered in the application filed under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking extension of time being that the petitioners/defendants could not procure relevant documents well in time and other than the aforesaid they were trying to 3 ( 2025:HHC:2254 ) settle the matter before the Gram Panchayat, as the petitioners/ defendants were the representatives of the concerned Panchayat. 7. The proviso of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code reads as under:- “Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the same on such other day, as may be specified by the Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, but which shall not be later than ninety days from the date of service of summons.” 8. Language of the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code is couched in a negative form. No penal consequences on account of the non compliance have been provided therein. The same pertains to the domain osf procedural law. It has been held to be directory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing written statement beyond the time scheduled provided by Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code is not completely taken away. 9. The time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule. Departure therefrom can only be by way of an exception. The extension of time can be allowed by way of an exception for reasons to be assigned by the defendant. The extension may be granted in circumstances, which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be caused if the time is not extended. In this respect, reference 4 ( 2025:HHC:2254 ) can be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sandeep Thapar vs. SME Technologies Private Limited, 2014(2) SCC 302. 10. Indisputably, in the case at hand, written statement has not been filed within the prescribed timeline laid down in the proviso of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The only defence taken for the blatant lapse, in the case at hand, being that the petitioners/defendants could not procure the relevant documents in time and were trying to settle the matter before the Gram Panchayat, as the petitioners/defendants were then representatives of the concerned Panchayat. The same cannot be construed to be a reasoned justification/explanation. No exceptional circumstance, which was beyond the control of the petitioners/defendants, has been proffered as an explanation. The extension being sought, in the case at hand, was being sought in a casual manner. The litigants cannot be permitted to file written statement on their own sweet will and/or to prolong the lis. Cavalier attitude towards the process of law affects the administration of justice. 11. Besides the aforesaid, the present petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: “(i) In Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, (2003)3 SCC 524, it has been held as under:- 5 ( 2025:HHC:2254 ) “7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re- weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision.” (iii) In Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022)4 SCC 181, it has been held as under:- “15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute conclusion, for its own that of decision the on facts inferior court and or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v.Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at 6 ( 2025:HHC:2254 ) all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.” 12. Thus, from the above stated exposition of law, it is clear that this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice. 13. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of above terms, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) January 09, 2025 (KS) Judge